Several things have been in news recently that have caused me to reflect on bravery and courage. One of the things that I have observed in that people who have performed extraordinary acts of courage and bravery general point out that they simply did what had to be done. They didn't view their actions as particularly extraordinary or even brave, they were simply doing their duty. But this is physical courage and reactive, these people took action in reaction to some event or circumstance and did so without a great deal of thought or analysis. I don't mean to denigrate or disparage these acts of courage, but courage takes many forms and sometimes, it requires a great deal of courage to do what is right rather than do what is expedient and this brings me to John Kerry.
There is no doubt that John Kerry served in a combat zone and was indeed under enemy fire. Whether or not he was a hero is really beside the point because he did do his duty and as we see from others, most acts of physical courage are reactive so it is easy to accept that John Kerry did in fact display physical courage. But that really isn't the point or certainly not the crucial point. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up and say "this is what I stand for" in an unequivocal way. President Harry Truman was famous for his moral courage. He took the position that I was elected to be President and I will do my best for the country. If you don't agree with me and my decisions, don't vote for me -- end of discussion. President George Bush hasn't been quite this direct, but he has effectively stated his intentions for the future and stood by his decisions in the past. He clearly believes in what he is doing and if you disagree, he is sorry but he doesn't plan on changing. But what does Senator Kerry stand for? What kind of moral courage has he displayed? He has yet to take any controversial stand and stick by it. For example, he clearly stated that he would expect any decision he made regarding military force would have to pass an international test. This was widely interpreted to mean that he would not act to use force to protect American interests unless the UN sanctioned it. When confronted with this interpretation, he didn't repudiate it, but he did try to soften it by saying he would always act to defend America. Not quite the same thing.
He has stated that he fully intends to raise taxes for the rich, except not for the very rich like himself. He and his wife pay 12.5% in taxes while the average "rich American" that he intends to tax pays considerably more in taxes. When confonted with this fact, his response was he would move to close the tax loopholes. The translation, is he doesn't plan on changing anything that will cost him but he fully intends to change things that will cost others.
His stance on military force is hardly distinguished. He voted against the Gulf War even after it was sanctioned by his treasured UN. Even though Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, he still voted against the war. He voted to give President Bush the authority to use force but he later equivocated by stating that he never actually expected the President to use force. He voted for and then against funding the military equipment and body armor he lated charged the President of not providing. Are these the actions of someone who has moral courage? With Senator Kerry, no one can ever be sure of precisely what he believes in because he only seems to believe what is expedient.
On a different subject, I see that the CEO of K-Mart is about to receive $94M in compensation even though the company has passed through one bankruptcy and is struggling to avoid another. The company has laid off thousands of people but the Board of Directors seems to think that it is morally right to pay the CEO what can only be viewed as an obscene amount of money considering that he was the leader who led the company into disaster. Here is a Board who has no moral compass rewarding an individual who has even less of a sense of morality.
The ACLU is running an ad opposing the Patriot Act. This ad points out that this act enables the government to search your house without first notifying you of its intention. Well -- helloooo -- the government has never been under any obligation to notify you that it intends to search your house. All that is required is that the government produce a search order signed by a judge and the Patriot Act has not changed that. It does permit the government to get one order and then apply it other cell phones since the terrorists move from phone to phone in an effort to thwart the government. The ACLU has also refused a grant from the Ford Foundation because they restricted the ACLU from using the funds to support terrorists organizations. Talk about being out of touch with reality. The ACLU also has successfully forced the government to provide lawyers to all of the terrorists held in Cuba. The judges in this country have completely lost their minds. Should we have provided lawyers to every POW we captured in WW II or Korea BEFORE locking them up? They successfully got one of their terrorists freed and he merrily went back to murdering and bombing in Afghanistan. Something needs to be done regarding this organization because it is becoming a serious danger to the country. Oh well, as Scarlett said -- "Tomorrow is another day".
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
What Ever Happened to Red China
When did the “Peoples Republic of China” become simply “China”? As far as I know the Chinese government still thinks of themselves as “The Peoples Republic”, yet the media no longer refers to them as the PRC. For that matter when did China cease being “Red China” and morph into the PRC and then to “China”? Are they less “Red” today? Has China become democratic or less communist? Of course not, what has happened is the media wants to turn world attention away from the abuses by the remaining Communist Regimes. North Korea is no longer “Communist North Korea” instead it has evolved into “North Korea” or if any negative connotation is offered, it is referred to as a “rogue regime”, but rarely if ever is it referred to as “communist”. The same is true of Cuba, suddenly Castro has gone mainstream as the Left tries to garner acceptance for his worker’s paradise, while ignoring the continued suppression of dissent and persecution of those who dare to challenge him. Did Communism die with the Berlin Wall? The recent anti-war protests were organized by the communists but for the most part in their haste to turn opinion against the administration the part played by the communists has either been glossed over or ignored altogether. What is going on in the media and when did communism die? For that matter what about its birth?
Interestingly, Communism is actually a moral reaction to capitalism and both are simply structured philosophical descriptions of market dynamics and part of the Science (?) of Economics. Commerce was largely unexplored or at least languished among the scholarly pursuits until the 1600’s. The history of the development and evolution of Economics is eloquently described in the “Worldly Philosophers”[1] Adam Smith in his book the “Wealth of Nations” actually is describing the real workings of the world of commerce at the dawning of the Industrial Age. Communism as described by Marx and Engels came as a philosophical reaction to the dark side of capitalism. This reaction can be summed up as being a moral judgment on the unequal distribution of wealth but it is a long way from formulating a philosophy and acting upon it. So Communism wasn’t born until 1917.
What seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is that governments can be capitalist, socialist, or even communist, but the actual form of government is none of those. Governments are democratic and freely elected, or they are hereditary absolute monarchies, or dictatorships. Communist governments are and have always been dictatorships. No Communist government has ever been freely elected. Yet from the very outset the Leftists have been unable to get past the inherent morality of Communist philosophy and see its failures in practice. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens upon his return from the Russia of Lenin and Stalin said “I have seen the future and it works”.[2] Of course virtually all of the leftist writers and journalists at the time were offering very positive views of Communism. So the positive view of Communism has a long history and includes some very impressive names who offered if not outright support, certainly provided a patina of approval. Shortly after assuming the Presidency President Truman said “You are needlessly worried about Russian Communism, I am worried about British Imperialism”. A view he quickly came to realize was erroneous but a position that the liberal Leftists never came to share.
Instead the media and the Leftist intelligentsia glossed over the excesses, blatant falsehoods, and most of all the atrocities committed by the Communist Regime in Russia and later in Cambodia, Cuba, China, and Viet Nam. These were largely ignored and the left wing intellectuals continued their love affair, providing the Russians with atomic secrets among other traitorous acts. Even today the Goldberg’s are viewed as martyrs by the Left and the posthumous proof that Robert Oppenheimer was in fact providing secrets to the Communists was simply ignored by the media. But now we have the papers of Senator McCarthy describing his attacks on Hollywood and the State Department, those “bastions of “right thinking” and the media are once again in a fighting frenzy. Senator McCarthy was certainly a flawed man and there is little doubt that he grossly overplayed his hand, but the fact is Hollywood was and still is filled with actors, producers, and directors who are filled with animosity toward America and American ideals and freedoms, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick the “blame America first crowd.” Today “McCarthyism” is an epithet to be hurled at anyone who dares to challenge the Leftist intellectuals and their anti-American and pro-communist stance. The fact is that Senator McCarty was not totally wrong. . If you doubt this watch any Oliver Stone movie. He is an historical revisionist determined to show the world how history should have been.
But, what about Red China – how did it become not Red? How did Cuba cease being Communist Cuba and become “Castro’s Cuba”? Are these countries no longer “Communist”? Have I missed some dramatic change of heart? Are these countries now allowing free speech, freedom of the press, private ownership? Not that I know of, instead they continue to be oppressive states that imprison people for simply disagreeing with them. No dissent is allowed. The liberal press (a redundancy) paints a rosy picture of China today – it is a worker’s paradise. They are actually allowing elections at the village level. Of course, the old USSR held elections as well and you could vote for any Communist Party Candidate of your choice. The same is true in China today. It is just as Red and just as oppressive as it always was. It is interesting to me that the liberals today see China on the way to reform much like Taiwan and Korea. Apparently I missed something here because Taiwan was a leftover from the old Chiang Kai Shek regime and has been a democratically elected republic for a very long time. It evolved from a dictatorship but that was a very short period. As far as I know Korea is divided into two parts, the South which is a democratic government and the North which is a brutally repressive communist regime. So the “reforms” that the Chinese Government are implementing seem to me to be commercial more that political. Apparently this is just “realpolitik” because China wants to sell to the US and the US wants to buy. Red China is dead – Long Live China – the worker’s paradise.
[1] The Worldly Philosophers, Robert Heilbroner, Simon & Schuster, 1953,
[2] Useful Idiots, Mona Charen –Regenery, 2003
Interestingly, Communism is actually a moral reaction to capitalism and both are simply structured philosophical descriptions of market dynamics and part of the Science (?) of Economics. Commerce was largely unexplored or at least languished among the scholarly pursuits until the 1600’s. The history of the development and evolution of Economics is eloquently described in the “Worldly Philosophers”[1] Adam Smith in his book the “Wealth of Nations” actually is describing the real workings of the world of commerce at the dawning of the Industrial Age. Communism as described by Marx and Engels came as a philosophical reaction to the dark side of capitalism. This reaction can be summed up as being a moral judgment on the unequal distribution of wealth but it is a long way from formulating a philosophy and acting upon it. So Communism wasn’t born until 1917.
What seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is that governments can be capitalist, socialist, or even communist, but the actual form of government is none of those. Governments are democratic and freely elected, or they are hereditary absolute monarchies, or dictatorships. Communist governments are and have always been dictatorships. No Communist government has ever been freely elected. Yet from the very outset the Leftists have been unable to get past the inherent morality of Communist philosophy and see its failures in practice. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens upon his return from the Russia of Lenin and Stalin said “I have seen the future and it works”.[2] Of course virtually all of the leftist writers and journalists at the time were offering very positive views of Communism. So the positive view of Communism has a long history and includes some very impressive names who offered if not outright support, certainly provided a patina of approval. Shortly after assuming the Presidency President Truman said “You are needlessly worried about Russian Communism, I am worried about British Imperialism”. A view he quickly came to realize was erroneous but a position that the liberal Leftists never came to share.
Instead the media and the Leftist intelligentsia glossed over the excesses, blatant falsehoods, and most of all the atrocities committed by the Communist Regime in Russia and later in Cambodia, Cuba, China, and Viet Nam. These were largely ignored and the left wing intellectuals continued their love affair, providing the Russians with atomic secrets among other traitorous acts. Even today the Goldberg’s are viewed as martyrs by the Left and the posthumous proof that Robert Oppenheimer was in fact providing secrets to the Communists was simply ignored by the media. But now we have the papers of Senator McCarthy describing his attacks on Hollywood and the State Department, those “bastions of “right thinking” and the media are once again in a fighting frenzy. Senator McCarthy was certainly a flawed man and there is little doubt that he grossly overplayed his hand, but the fact is Hollywood was and still is filled with actors, producers, and directors who are filled with animosity toward America and American ideals and freedoms, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick the “blame America first crowd.” Today “McCarthyism” is an epithet to be hurled at anyone who dares to challenge the Leftist intellectuals and their anti-American and pro-communist stance. The fact is that Senator McCarty was not totally wrong. . If you doubt this watch any Oliver Stone movie. He is an historical revisionist determined to show the world how history should have been.
But, what about Red China – how did it become not Red? How did Cuba cease being Communist Cuba and become “Castro’s Cuba”? Are these countries no longer “Communist”? Have I missed some dramatic change of heart? Are these countries now allowing free speech, freedom of the press, private ownership? Not that I know of, instead they continue to be oppressive states that imprison people for simply disagreeing with them. No dissent is allowed. The liberal press (a redundancy) paints a rosy picture of China today – it is a worker’s paradise. They are actually allowing elections at the village level. Of course, the old USSR held elections as well and you could vote for any Communist Party Candidate of your choice. The same is true in China today. It is just as Red and just as oppressive as it always was. It is interesting to me that the liberals today see China on the way to reform much like Taiwan and Korea. Apparently I missed something here because Taiwan was a leftover from the old Chiang Kai Shek regime and has been a democratically elected republic for a very long time. It evolved from a dictatorship but that was a very short period. As far as I know Korea is divided into two parts, the South which is a democratic government and the North which is a brutally repressive communist regime. So the “reforms” that the Chinese Government are implementing seem to me to be commercial more that political. Apparently this is just “realpolitik” because China wants to sell to the US and the US wants to buy. Red China is dead – Long Live China – the worker’s paradise.
[1] The Worldly Philosophers, Robert Heilbroner, Simon & Schuster, 1953,
[2] Useful Idiots, Mona Charen –Regenery, 2003
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Marcus Tullius Cicero
I just completed the biography of Marcus Tullius Cicero by Jonathon Everett. History, especially of Western Civilization is a threatened species today, since to actually admit that it is Western Civilization that has brought us the Renaissance, Shakespeare, Science, Art, Music, and what we generally know as civilization today, is politically incorrect. Yes, it is well known that it was the Muslims who protected the knowledge of Western Civilization during the Dark Ages, but then the Muslims never progressed beyond that role and actively repudiate all modernity today. Yes, it is also well known that the Chinese invented virtually everything but it is less well known that they were an insular society with no drive to move outside of their own society leaving the foundation they laid to be exploited by the West. So, due to multi-culturalism and the general antagonistic attitude toward Western Civilization it is unlikely that this book or any detailed knowledge of Cicero would be taught today. But Cicero was not just a fascinating man, he gives us a very clear view of his society and he was a towering figure in his day. He was a childhood friend of Julius Caesar, Pompey, Cassius, and Brutus. More importantly he unknowingly played a pivotal role in the foundation of the Roman Empire and helped sow the seeds of its ultimate destruction.
Cicero was a brilliant orator, a Senator, a Roman Consul and above all a politician. He also was an idealist, a constitutionalist, and a person not unlike many of our contemporary politicians, long on words but short on decisions, actions, and courage. He dominated Roman politics for 40 years solely on the basis of his character. People respected and admired him because he was (rightfully) viewed as incorruptible. He was a world famous lawyer, brilliant speaker, prominent politician and a statesman, but even though he dutifully performed his military obligation, he was really not a soldier nor a man of great physical courage but he was a man of great moral courage with a firm determination to follow the laws. Unfortunately, the Roman Republic was tottering due to corruption as well as some inherent instability. What Rome needed was a man of action, a pragmatist, not an idealist and they found that man in Caius Julius Caesar, a brilliant soldier with a keen mind and high ambition – not just for himself but for Rome. He recognized that something needed to be done and felt he was just the man to do it. To some extent Cicero agreed with this assessment but he simply couldn’t bring himself to break the law or change the constitution to allow for a more centralized government.
The amazing thing about this book is that Caesar comes across looking more like a failed George Washington than a MacBeth. Caesar alone recognized that the Republic was failing through its inherent structural weakness and systemic corruption, a realization that he used very effectively in gaining power. Even without Caesar the Republic would have failed and had Cicero joined the first Triumvirate as he was asked to do, years of civil war could have been avoided, and the Roman Empire might have never undergone the instability that characterized it throughout its existence. The First Triumvirate was merely an expedient stopgap for Caesar in his drive to create a central government with himself as the head. Because of the opposition of the “Constitutionalists” like Cicero Caesar’s drive for power was thwarted and no one was ever able to establish any alternative process to the Consuls as the legal head of state. Consequently, Rome was always a pseudo-monarchy headed by the strongest or most devious person. The government always had pretensions of being a Republic and the Roman Senate existed until the end, but the reality was that after Caesar, it was never a Republic but a pseudo-monarchy without any real right of succession, which made the government inherently very unstable.
Instead of supporting Caesar whom he knew to be right, Cicero chose to oppose the pragmatic Caesar and to support the inherently weak Senate and Constitution. This was the legal and moral thing to do since Caesar wished to abandon the current government and replace it with something more efficient, something with him as the head of state. The Romans had replaced the original monarchy with the Republic so they were viscerally opposed to monarchy; Caesar knew this as did Cicero. Caesar was maneuvering to remake the government and become the head of state, which was interpreted as an attempt to become King. However, because of the fundamental aversion of Romans to monarchy, Cicero foresaw that Caesar’s reforms would have been the equivalent of the Russian Revolution of 1917 with the same purges and violence as Caesar consolidated his position and eliminated any potential opposition. Consequently Cicero opted to “reform” the government through legal means, but he was never able to specify precisely what process he advocated as a means for reform because he could never muster enough support from the corrupted Senate to make any change. This was a situation that Caesar foresaw and attempted in vain to get Cicero to realize this.
At the time Caesar was a successful and well known General but not overly popular within the upper class. He was very politically astute and he could see the Republic was tottering. He fully intended to seize power (ala Napoleon in 1794) and he needed allies to do this. He needed Cicero’s prestige and begged him to join him as he formed what became known as the first Triumvirate. These discussions dragged on and on as Cicero vacillated between what he knew needed to be done and his love of the law and the Republic. Eventually his idealism won out, he refused Caesar and became one of Caesar’s principal opponents. His lack of support energized Caesar’s opponents and opposition which culminated in Caesar’s assassination. But it cost the Empire and history very dearly since it plunged Rome into a series of Civil Wars and left it to the mercy of corrupt politicians and a systemically weak government.
It becomes obvious in this book that the Constitutional government established by Rome worked OK (never great) for a city state but was unworkable for an empire. The head of state was a duality -- the Consuls -- who only had terms of one year and could not be re-elected. This made for quick decisions with little foresight and much internal bickering. The Consuls were rarely in office long enough to see or feel the long term effects of their decisions. They made laws and the Senate ratified them but the Tribunes could (and did) veto them for any reason, with no appeal. Worse even laws that were passed could be revoked by the incoming Consuls with senate approval, which could be bought. The result was an elected government but a highly unstable one. Overall the government was failing and Caesar saw it as did Cicero. Caesar wanted to destroy the existing Republic and remake it while Cicero wanted to fix it. Both were men of honor acting in what they felt was the best interest of the state. Admittedly, Caesar went outside of the law while Cicero attempted to work within the law when even he knew the law was unworkable and for sale.
A truly fascinating book and I highly recommend it.
Cicero was a brilliant orator, a Senator, a Roman Consul and above all a politician. He also was an idealist, a constitutionalist, and a person not unlike many of our contemporary politicians, long on words but short on decisions, actions, and courage. He dominated Roman politics for 40 years solely on the basis of his character. People respected and admired him because he was (rightfully) viewed as incorruptible. He was a world famous lawyer, brilliant speaker, prominent politician and a statesman, but even though he dutifully performed his military obligation, he was really not a soldier nor a man of great physical courage but he was a man of great moral courage with a firm determination to follow the laws. Unfortunately, the Roman Republic was tottering due to corruption as well as some inherent instability. What Rome needed was a man of action, a pragmatist, not an idealist and they found that man in Caius Julius Caesar, a brilliant soldier with a keen mind and high ambition – not just for himself but for Rome. He recognized that something needed to be done and felt he was just the man to do it. To some extent Cicero agreed with this assessment but he simply couldn’t bring himself to break the law or change the constitution to allow for a more centralized government.
The amazing thing about this book is that Caesar comes across looking more like a failed George Washington than a MacBeth. Caesar alone recognized that the Republic was failing through its inherent structural weakness and systemic corruption, a realization that he used very effectively in gaining power. Even without Caesar the Republic would have failed and had Cicero joined the first Triumvirate as he was asked to do, years of civil war could have been avoided, and the Roman Empire might have never undergone the instability that characterized it throughout its existence. The First Triumvirate was merely an expedient stopgap for Caesar in his drive to create a central government with himself as the head. Because of the opposition of the “Constitutionalists” like Cicero Caesar’s drive for power was thwarted and no one was ever able to establish any alternative process to the Consuls as the legal head of state. Consequently, Rome was always a pseudo-monarchy headed by the strongest or most devious person. The government always had pretensions of being a Republic and the Roman Senate existed until the end, but the reality was that after Caesar, it was never a Republic but a pseudo-monarchy without any real right of succession, which made the government inherently very unstable.
Instead of supporting Caesar whom he knew to be right, Cicero chose to oppose the pragmatic Caesar and to support the inherently weak Senate and Constitution. This was the legal and moral thing to do since Caesar wished to abandon the current government and replace it with something more efficient, something with him as the head of state. The Romans had replaced the original monarchy with the Republic so they were viscerally opposed to monarchy; Caesar knew this as did Cicero. Caesar was maneuvering to remake the government and become the head of state, which was interpreted as an attempt to become King. However, because of the fundamental aversion of Romans to monarchy, Cicero foresaw that Caesar’s reforms would have been the equivalent of the Russian Revolution of 1917 with the same purges and violence as Caesar consolidated his position and eliminated any potential opposition. Consequently Cicero opted to “reform” the government through legal means, but he was never able to specify precisely what process he advocated as a means for reform because he could never muster enough support from the corrupted Senate to make any change. This was a situation that Caesar foresaw and attempted in vain to get Cicero to realize this.
At the time Caesar was a successful and well known General but not overly popular within the upper class. He was very politically astute and he could see the Republic was tottering. He fully intended to seize power (ala Napoleon in 1794) and he needed allies to do this. He needed Cicero’s prestige and begged him to join him as he formed what became known as the first Triumvirate. These discussions dragged on and on as Cicero vacillated between what he knew needed to be done and his love of the law and the Republic. Eventually his idealism won out, he refused Caesar and became one of Caesar’s principal opponents. His lack of support energized Caesar’s opponents and opposition which culminated in Caesar’s assassination. But it cost the Empire and history very dearly since it plunged Rome into a series of Civil Wars and left it to the mercy of corrupt politicians and a systemically weak government.
It becomes obvious in this book that the Constitutional government established by Rome worked OK (never great) for a city state but was unworkable for an empire. The head of state was a duality -- the Consuls -- who only had terms of one year and could not be re-elected. This made for quick decisions with little foresight and much internal bickering. The Consuls were rarely in office long enough to see or feel the long term effects of their decisions. They made laws and the Senate ratified them but the Tribunes could (and did) veto them for any reason, with no appeal. Worse even laws that were passed could be revoked by the incoming Consuls with senate approval, which could be bought. The result was an elected government but a highly unstable one. Overall the government was failing and Caesar saw it as did Cicero. Caesar wanted to destroy the existing Republic and remake it while Cicero wanted to fix it. Both were men of honor acting in what they felt was the best interest of the state. Admittedly, Caesar went outside of the law while Cicero attempted to work within the law when even he knew the law was unworkable and for sale.
A truly fascinating book and I highly recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)